And in return, I could say, Ignore Obvious Leo because he is a relentless purveyor of commonly held scientist beliefs, with the imagination of a pig. Except that pigs are relatively intelligent, according to those who think that studying critters will lead us to an understanding of ourselves.Obvious Leo wrote:Clueless. I would highly recommend the work of Antonio Damasio when it comes to a scholarly analysis of consciousness. His primary field is in neuroscience but he is very well schooled in many of the related disciplines and I also regard him highly as a philosopher. I'm not sure how many books he's written but I have three of them and I'm fairly sure there are a few others. The three I have are all very insightful.
"Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain"
"Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain"
"Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain"
The last of these works I found particularly helpful for my own work, which is in the field of non-linear dynamic systems theory.
Ignore Greylorn. He sometimes has something useful to say but he's a relentless mystic with the manners of a pig.
Thank you for acknowledging that I might offer some useful comments. Why not get a pair of balls and discuss those with me?
Indeed, I'm not conventionally mannered, but I can perform well enough in public to confuse observers. Forums like this are more interesting because I do not need to perform. I can simply offer my ideas and see if anyone finds them interesting.
It's like going fishing, except that when fishing, you only get to catch an animal stupid enough to be caught. Here, I'm fishing for intelligence. It's a hard find.
Pretend for a moment that you are objective. What difference does it make to you, a pretentious asshole, if a useful idea comes from another pretentious asshole? A useful idea must stand on its own, or fall. The assholes are not relevant to their ideas.
In whatever spare time you might have from episodes of verbal diarrhea, kindly explain to me why you think that you, someone who believes in Big Bang theory (the universe came from nothing) and Darwinism (nevermind the ridiculous odds and the total absence of an abiogenesis explanation), ideas which cannot define their beginnings, gets arrogant enough to label someone who insists that all aspects of the universe can only be explained from experimentally and empirically observed phenomena is a "mystic?" Let me guess. Could it be because you are incapable of understanding anything I've written because you filter it through your programmed beliefs? Or could it be because you are fundamentally a well-programmed brain, programmed with filters, within which whatever passes in you for mind serves only to propagate the teachings with which it has been programmed? Or could it be because at the most fundamental level of mind, you don't have one?